1. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN.)------Mr. Mohammad Ashraf, Appellant. Was demoted from the rank of Forester to the rank of Forest Guard by the order of Cheif Conservator of Forests, Lahore dated 9-12-1978. His appeal was also rejected.
2. The appellant joined the Department as Forest Guard on 8-6-61 and was brought on regular establishment on 1-7-1962. He was considered for promotion to the rank of Forester by the Departmental Selection Com--mittee on 20-11-1976 and recommended for promotion. Divisional Forest Officer, Gujranwala-Sheikhupura accepted the recommendation of the Departmental Selection Committee and promoted the appellant to the rank of Forester vide him order No. 124/GSD dated 20-11-1976. A complaint --was lodged by some one to the Chief Conservator of Forests against the promotion of the appellant. The Chief Conservator of Forests vide his Order No. 10/EX/CCF-Pb., dated 20-7-1978 cancelled the promotion order of the appellant.
3. Both the parties have been heard. The contention of the appellant is that the order dated 9-12-78 passed by the Conservator of Forests is illegal and without lawful authority. The contention of the Department is that the promotion of the appellant to the rank of Forester was in contravention to rule 5 of the west Pakistan Forest Department Subordinate Service Rules 1963 and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The appellant who was at Sr. No. 76 of the seniority list was ineligible for promotion because he was more than 37 years of age, the maximum age laid down in the Rules of the Forest Department. The Department has further contended that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.
4. The West Pakistan Forest Department Subordinate Service Rules 1963 have been examined. The question of Selection Committee's constitution has been considered. We are of opinion that it was properly constituted and two of the three officers mentioned, in the Notification of 26-8-1975 considered the case of the appellant. There is no doubt that rule 5(3)(b) regarding the maximum age has been violated in the case as the age of the appellant at the time of promotion was more than 35 years, i.e. More than 32 years, the maximum prescribed in the rule 5(3)(b). This however, does not mean that an order of cancellation can be passed unilaterally. It is essential that before ordering his reversion the appellant should have been called upon to explain his position and heard personally. This has not been done in this case. The order of reversion is, therefore, set aside and the case remanded to the Department for reconsideration in accordance with the Rules.